David R. Busang – 1/21/07

This page was last updated on January 22, 2007.

Bush violates the Constitution; David R. Busang; Beaver County Times; January 21, 2007.

Including this one, I’ve critiqued seven of Mr. Busang’s letters since 2003. One of those letters praised the educational value of Times editorials (Yes, he was serious.), one bashed then-Sen. Santorum for voting the way Mr. Busang wanted him to vote, and another tried to exonerate Sen. Bob Casey, Jr., for his role in the 2005 PA payjacking. This letter is of similar caliber.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“How long is the U. S. Congress going to allow President George Bush to continue to rewrite the words of a statute, or to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like by the use of a ‘signing statement?’”

[RWC] Please see most of my comments regarding signing statements in my critique of the editorial entitled “By the book.”

“His assertion that he has the right to read our mail without court oversight is his latest intrusion on our civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

“A ‘signing statement’ that would revise, interpret, disregard, or fail to implement any portion or provision of any law passed by Congress is unconstitutional.

“Nor does President Bush have the authority to determine what does or does not violate the U.S. Constitution. That authority rests solely with the U.S. Supreme Court.”

[RWC] “That authority rests solely with the U.S. Supreme Court?” I didn’t see that in the Constitution.

In any case, it’s a bogus notion. Does Mr. Busang really believe someone – including government officials – should perform an act even if he believes it’s unconstitutional? If a law said it was OK to discriminate based on race, would it be OK to obey the law?

“In my view, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled, indirectly, on the presidential use of signing statements that alter original laws.

“In 1996, Congress passed a bill giving then-President Clinton line-item veto authority to delete individual items from appropriations and tax bills approved by Congress. Subsequently, in 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the line-item veto was unconstitutional, because it allowed the president to change laws passed by Congress. Signing statements, as being used by President Bush, are doing exactly what the Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional.”

[RWC] Comparing signing statements and the line-item veto bill is like comparing apples and oranges. In the line-item veto bill, the president would actually alter the bill by crossing out spending items and then sign the bill. Signing statements do not alter the signed bill. The statements merely state how the administration will interpret a bill, and all laws have to be interpreted by the people who have to implement them.

I wonder why Mr. Busang failed to acknowledge a Republican-majority Congress gave Mr. Clinton the line-item veto. <g>

“So why won’t Congress put a stop to President Bush’s violations of the U.S. Constitution?”

[RWC] According to a memo by the Clinton administration referenced in the aforementioned critique, several Supreme Court rulings support signing statements.